Armorsmith Archive
Thread: The thing people have been waiting for: What armors are certified for which professions.
Well, that is what the devs said it was going to be - only certified people will be able to wear certain armors.
Ox- wrote:
As for certs, I don't even have novice marksman, yet I can equip a T21. I don't see why armor couldn't be the same.
Ox- wrote:
As for certs, I don't even have novice marksman, yet I can equip a T21. I don't see why armor couldn't be the same.
As an armorsmith, all I care about is whether being an armorsmith will continue to be fun and challenging. I don't care about what armor I can personally wear, or whether all my resources are now useless.
On TC5 you cannot equip a weapon you are not certified for.
Lashiens wrote:
Blixtev wrote:
Starcloud wrote:
Blixtev,
I'd really appreciate it if in the next meeting you would point out to everyone that this is Star Wars, not Star Fantasy, and find some way of getting away from the Fantasy mindset of "elemental magics in opposition."
From the magazine of the same name see Science Fantasy (magazine)
"Science fantasy is the merging of science fiction and fantasy, two popular genres of writing. The two are notoriously difficult to define, and possibly even more difficult to distinguish. One might claim that science fiction provides a scientific explanation for all phenomena, whereas fantasy mostly takes the supernatural for granted. However, the "science" behind these explanations is often no more than mumbo-jumbo, especially in the pulp magazines. Hence, it might be said that the difference is more one of stage props: on the one hand we have spacecraft and phasers, on the other hand magic carpets and wands of smiting.
Now, since Arthur C. Clarke claims that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", this distinction also becomes blurred, and the area in which it is most blurred is science fantasy. Here, we find the props that are typical for fantasy explained in a manner typical for science fiction: monsters become aliens, and magic artifacts become relics of forgotten science.
The Martian stories of Leigh Brackett might be regarded as science fantasy, as well as M. John Harrison's Viriconium novels, or Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Many works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, especially his Barsoom novels, clearly fall into this category. Terry Brooks' world depicted in "The Sword of Shannara" sits on this line as well. Perhaps the most well-known example of science fantasy is Star Wars. "
lol!
Blixtev for t3h win!
/hi5
Message Edited by ArythBandar on 04-02-2005 04:06 AM
Blixtev wrote:
Starcloud wrote:Blixtev,I'd really appreciate it if in the next meeting you would point out to everyone that this is Star Wars, not Star Fantasy, and find some way of getting away from the Fantasy mindset of "elemental magics in opposition."From the magazine of the same name see Science Fantasy (magazine)
"Science fantasy is the merging of science fiction and fantasy, two popular genres of writing. The two are notoriously difficult to define, and possibly even more difficult to distinguish. One might claim that science fiction provides a scientific explanation for all phenomena, whereas fantasy mostly takes the supernatural for granted. However, the "science" behind these explanations is often no more than mumbo-jumbo, especially in the pulp magazines. Hence, it might be said that the difference is more one of stage props: on the one hand we have spacecraft and phasers, on the other hand magic carpets and wands of smiting.
Now, since Arthur C. Clarke claims that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", this distinction also becomes blurred, and the area in which it is most blurred is science fantasy. Here, we find the props that are typical for fantasy explained in a manner typical for science fiction: monsters become aliens, and magic artifacts become relics of forgotten science.
The Martian stories of Leigh Brackett might be regarded as science fantasy, as well as M. John Harrison's Viriconium novels, or Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Many works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, especially his Barsoom novels, clearly fall into this category. Terry Brooks' world depicted in "The Sword of Shannara" sits on this line as well. Perhaps the most well-known example of science fantasy is Star Wars. "
/sigh
Looks like somone went to the SOE school of how not to "hear" what the players are saying.
Blixtev wrote:
Lets assume you are a Master TKA-Commando:
Akkori wrote:
Blixtev wrote:
ZionHalcyon is correct, if you DO NOT have the first series of Mitigating numbers in the Novice box, you can not equip that style ofarmor. If you untrain the novice box that grants you the basic mitigators it will strip that armor off you.
Now the only remaining question is...
If I have 2 combat professions that grant certs for 2 different types of armor....lets say I'm a COmmando/TKA... if I wear the armor granted to me as a Commando, do I still have full access to all TKA abilities, modifiers, and specials?
Master Commando gives you max certification for Advanced Assault armor.
Master TKA gives you their defensive built in mitigators.
If you put on your Assault Armor it automatically cancels out the TKAbuilt in mitigators.
If you take off your Assault armor your TKA mitigators again go active.
If you are wearing armor you can still use TKA specials however the armor is where your protection is coming from not the TKA mitigators. Similarly you can have your armor off and pull out the Rocket launcher and the TKA mitigators are active.
The point being you can have one or the other, they justdont stack. It is just like youare not allowedto put on 2 chest pieces.
What exactly do armored TKs lose? All I see in the newTK boxes are Melee Defense, Unarmed Defense, and Center of Being.
Blixtev wrote:
Starcloud wrote:
Blixtev,
I'd really appreciate it if in the next meeting you would point out to everyone that this is Star Wars, not Star Fantasy, and find some way of getting away from the Fantasy mindset of "elemental magics in opposition."
From the magazine of the same name see Science Fantasy (magazine)
"Science fantasy is the merging of science fiction and fantasy, two popular genres of writing. The two are notoriously difficult to define, and possibly even more difficult to distinguish. One might claim that science fiction provides a scientific explanation for all phenomena, whereas fantasy mostly takes the supernatural for granted. However, the "science" behind these explanations is often no more than mumbo-jumbo, especially in the pulp magazines. Hence, it might be said that the difference is more one of stage props: on the one hand we have spacecraft and phasers, on the other hand magic carpets and wands of smiting.
Now, since Arthur C. Clarke claims that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", this distinction also becomes blurred, and the area in which it is most blurred is science fantasy. Here, we find the props that are typical for fantasy explained in a manner typical for science fiction: monsters become aliens, and magic artifacts become relics of forgotten science.
The Martian stories of Leigh Brackett might be regarded as science fantasy, as well as M. John Harrison's Viriconium novels, or Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Many works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, especially his Barsoom novels, clearly fall into this category. Terry Brooks' world depicted in "The Sword of Shannara" sits on this line as well. Perhaps the most well-known example of science fantasy is Star Wars. "
LOL thanks for the chuckle, it's a great cop out but a cop out nevertheless, as has been pointed out already Star Wars draws a strong dividing line between magic (The Force) and technology. You need only pick up one of the illustrated books with ship schematics,observe Luke in a bacta tank or see the inner workings of his cybernetic hand to see this.
Also I think quoteing Arthur C. Clarke the way you have (i.e. out of context) is rather close to sacrilege, he was talking about a technological gap the size or Cavemen to modern day, it should not have escaped your attention that Star Wars doesn't even come close to that kind of technological gap. Furthermore Arthur envisedged geostationary satalites but didn't dismiss their workings as magic to primitives, he explained himself, he also tried to explain how an orbital elevator might work; a technological leap so great that NASA has only just begun to ask for people to address the required technology! If you want to quote great people have a care to follow their example won't you.
Gift.
Message Edited by Giftmacher on 04-02-2005 02:54 AM
Blixtev wrote:
Starcloud wrote:Blixtev,I'd really appreciate it if in the next meeting you would point out to everyone that this is Star Wars, not Star Fantasy, and find some way of getting away from the Fantasy mindset of "elemental magics in opposition."From the magazine of the same name see Science Fantasy (magazine)
"Science fantasy is the merging of science fiction and fantasy, two popular genres of writing. The two are notoriously difficult to define, and possibly even more difficult to distinguish. One might claim that science fiction provides a scientific explanation for all phenomena, whereas fantasy mostly takes the supernatural for granted. However, the "science" behind these explanations is often no more than mumbo-jumbo, especially in the pulp magazines. Hence, it might be said that the difference is more one of stage props: on the one hand we have spacecraft and phasers, on the other hand magic carpets and wands of smiting.
Now, since Arthur C. Clarke claims that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", this distinction also becomes blurred, and the area in which it is most blurred is science fantasy. Here, we find the props that are typical for fantasy explained in a manner typical for science fiction: monsters become aliens, and magic artifacts become relics of forgotten science.
The Martian stories of Leigh Brackett might be regarded as science fantasy, as well as M. John Harrison's Viriconium novels, or Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Many works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, especially his Barsoom novels, clearly fall into this category. Terry Brooks' world depicted in "The Sword of Shannara" sits on this line as well. Perhaps the most well-known example of science fantasy is Star Wars. "
From an actual Star Wars movie: There are no white energy balls coming out when you punch someone.
Blixtev wrote:
Starcloud wrote:
Blixtev,
I'd really appreciate it if in the next meeting you would point out to everyone that this is Star Wars, not Star Fantasy, and find some way of getting away from the Fantasy mindset of "elemental magics in opposition."
From the magazine of the same name see Science Fantasy (magazine)
"Science fantasy is the merging of science fiction and fantasy, two popular genres of writing. The two are notoriously difficult to define, and possibly even more difficult to distinguish. One might claim that science fiction provides a scientific explanation for all phenomena, whereas fantasy mostly takes the supernatural for granted. However, the "science" behind these explanations is often no more than mumbo-jumbo, especially in the pulp magazines. Hence, it might be said that the difference is more one of stage props: on the one hand we have spacecraft and phasers, on the other hand magic carpets and wands of smiting.
Now, since Arthur C. Clarke claims that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", this distinction also becomes blurred, and the area in which it is most blurred is science fantasy. Here, we find the props that are typical for fantasy explained in a manner typical for science fiction: monsters become aliens, and magic artifacts become relics of forgotten science.
The Martian stories of Leigh Brackett might be regarded as science fantasy, as well as M. John Harrison's Viriconium novels, or Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Many works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, especially his Barsoom novels, clearly fall into this category. Terry Brooks' world depicted in "The Sword of Shannara" sits on this line as well. Perhaps the most well-known example of science fantasy is Star Wars. "
That was strong!
*offers Blixtev a hi5*
Now, on a supportive note, the idea of elemental damage is not a new one to Star Wars. Or have you not noticed that we have had heat, cold, acid, electrical, blast, energy and kinetic damage types since launch? The only thing that's different is that they didn't use the word 'elemental' and they didn't set the damage types at opposition to eachother per se.
Now, on the elemental damage types them selves, you have to understand that the idea of elemental forces is as old as science itself. Itfurther backthan pre victorian science and alchemy, all the way back to promitive animistic religioun. The idea of elemental forces are just integrated into our culture and it's not going away. It's just smart to use them in game. After all, if they didn't, we'd all be complaining that there were no damage subtypes.
My only concern is that more weight may be given to the hip schtick of opposing elemental damage than to common sence. For example: Krayt Dragons should be resistant to heat, for ovious reasons. But they sould also be resistant to cold, as all desert creatures are. Remember that Tatooine is in a binary star system, and is almost arctic in tempreture at night. (remember that luke had to get inside before they shut the farm power down). Krayts should also be resistant to electrical damage as they are the largest natural lightning rods around, and deserts generate lightning storms more than any other environment. They should not, however be resistant at all to Acid.
Anyway, there's my two credits.